Can either side give up something so that an intelligent discussion can take place?

Dayton3 said:

Because the choice to have an abortion is the only one they are interested in protecting and advancing.

Click to expand...

dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb Oh look, another right winger who has to make things up that aren't true.

Seriously, that's the best you can do? LOL

Lursa said:

I am a Christian, it's not up to you to decide.

And since you just denied I am, based on my (trying to) following His Word, one would question if you are?

Click to expand...

I did not deny you were a Christian. As you said, that isn't up for me to decide. I simply pointed out that the things you listed were not enough for someone to be considered a Christian.

When some minors were being separated from their illegal immigrant parents at the border I heard many times people say

My country doesn't put children in cages.

Well.

My country doesn't accept unborn children being killed before they are born (which is at most months and possibly weeks later).

Accepting the pro choice position means you are accepting the U.S. as a nation that gives its de facto endorsement to abortion.
There are those of us who don't want their country to do that.

weaver2 said:

Is it possible for pro-choice, and anti-abortion people to make compromises that might make possible an intelligent and realistic discussion with the possibility of creating workable laws about women's reproductive role? If so, what beliefs could each side give up?

Click to expand...

Theoretically, yes, it should be. The question of abortion isn't a yes/no issue. If you check some polls on the topic you'll find that about equal numbers are hard line "no abortion under any circumstances" and "we need Abortions 'r' us stores on every corner" types; these folks occupy 10-15% on either end. The vast majority, in varying degrees, feel abortion should be permitted under certain circumstances, including - but not limited to - race, incest, or the life of the mother.

Given that there should be some common grounds most of us can accept.

Bullseye said:

Theoretically, yes, it should be. The question of abortion isn't a yes/no issue. If you check some polls on the topic you'll find that about equal numbers are hard line "no abortion under any circumstances" and "we need Abortions 'r' us stores on every corner" types; these folks occupy 10-15% on either end. The vast majority, in varying degrees, feel abortion should be permitted under certain circumstances, including - but not limited to - race, incest, or the life of the mother.

Given that there should be some common grounds most of us can accept.

Click to expand...

What some people don't realize that it's possible to be both pro-choice and hates abortion.

In the ideal world, there would be no abortion. But this is the reality we live in today.

Dayton3 said:

I did not deny you were a Christian. As you said, that isn't up for me to decide. I simply pointed out that the things you listed were not enough for someone to be considered a Christian.

Click to expand...

What more is there than trying to do exactly what I wrote and accepting Jesus? (yes, I know that wasnt included before)

Dayton3 said:

Accepting the pro choice position means you are accepting the U.S. as a nation that gives its de facto endorsement to abortion.

Click to expand...

Dayton3 said:

Accepting the pro choice position means you are accepting the U.S. as a nation that gives its de facto endorsement to abortion.
There are those of us who don't want their country to do that.

Click to expand...

Feel free to move to one of the second or third world countries that bans it.

Lursa said:

In your opinion, what are some things that a pro-choice person should 'give up?'

What should I/they compromise on? Let's see your answer.

Click to expand...

"Give up" was probably not the right term to have used. I should have said "willing to compromise on"

The late term abortion laws are so poorly written that many are convinced abortion of late term, healthy, genetically normal, viable fetuses are legal up to the 9th month. These laws need to be re written so they clearly explain what situations they cover, when they apply and clearly where they don't apply.

The flexible cut off date for elective abortions needs is a source of contention for many and needs to be fixed. The anti-abortion movement is correct in objecting to some of the state laws that allow elective abortions of healthy, normal fetuses into the latter part of the 2nd trimester when viability does become an issue. Twelve to 14 weeks, (when the fetus is non-viable, non-sentient, about 3 inches long and weighs no more than 1/2 ounce) is enough time to decide whether to continue or end the pregnancy.

Although extremely difficult to do the pro-choice movement could try to lower the tone of 'women's rights' "my body, my choice'" rhetoric. It can get aggressive and irritating which probably isn't helpful in a compromise situation. A change of focus from the individual to concern for the welfare of the family and the changes a new baby will bring to the financial, physical and emotional stability of the family would be a smart and actually more realistic line to take.

There are probably other issues that have the potential of compromise but these three seem the easiest to address.

No compromise. The govt should not ban it at any stage.

Dayton3 said:

When some minors were being separated from their illegal immigrant parents at the border I heard many times people say

My country doesn't put children in cages.

Well.

My country doesn't accept unborn children being killed before they are born (which is at most months and possibly weeks later).

Accepting the pro choice position means you are accepting the U.S. as a nation that gives its de facto endorsement to abortion.
There are those of us who don't want their country to do that.

Click to expand...

Pretty much every poll taken says the opposite of the 2nd bolded statement. The majority support elective abortion.

Bullseye said:

Given that there should be some common grounds most of us can accept.

Click to expand...

And what are they? I think that's the OP's question.

weaver2 said:

The late term abortion laws are so poorly written that many are convinced abortion of late term, healthy, genetically normal, viable fetuses are legal up to the 9th month. These laws need to be re written so they clearly explain what situations they cover, when they apply and clearly where they don't apply.

Click to expand...

My position is that since no such "elective" abortions take place, there is no need for legislation or compromise.

There is no data that shows that anyone is aborting healthy, viable fetuses (unless perhaps the mother's life is in jeopardy, making it a medically necessary procedure). If you disagree, can you produce the data?

Why is any law or compromise needed here? IMO it's only to make people feel better, but it solves nothing.

I am against useless, feel-good legislation.

weaver2 said:

The late term abortion laws are so poorly written that many are convinced abortion of late term, healthy, genetically normal, viable fetuses are legal up to the 9th month. These laws need to be re written so they clearly explain what situations they cover, when they apply and clearly where they don't apply.

Click to expand...

Roe v. Wade is pretty clear.

Lursa said:

Pretty much every poll taken says the opposite of the 2nd bolded statement. The majority support elective abortion.

Click to expand...

I don't give a damn what the majority of Americans think. A majority of Americans have supported all sorts of absolute hideously evil things like elective abortion in the past. A "majority" doesn't make it right.

Lursa said:

My position is that since no such "elective" abortions take place, there is no need for legislation or compromise.

There is no data that shows that anyone is aborting healthy, viable fetuses (unless perhaps the mother's life is in jeopardy, making it a medically necessary procedure). If you disagree, can you produce the data?

Why is any law or compromise needed here? IMO it's only to make people feel better, but it solves nothing.

I am against useless, feel-good legislation.

Click to expand...

The confusion of the laws, what they mean, who they apply to, who enforces them are imperfect and a source of division between anti-abortion and pro-choice.

weaver2 said:

Is it possible for pro-choice, and anti-abortion people to make compromises that might make possible an intelligent and realistic discussion with the possibility of creating workable laws about women's reproductive role? If so, what beliefs could each side give up?

Click to expand...

I believe President Clinton best described what most of us who are pro-choice support, that abortions should be “safe, legal, and rare”.

There can be no compromise where the sovereignty of a person’s body is concerned.

ttwtt78640 said:

I have no doubt that you would be fine paying less (or nothing at all) and forcing someone else to pay more taxes to make that happen. Get real.

Click to expand...

How is that unrealistic? A return to 1950's era tax brackets as well as overturning the deregulation of the medical industry of the 1970's (forcing it once again to be not-for-profit) would make universal healthcare both affordable for the country and cheap for the average American. Billionaires can afford the few extra percentage points of taxes.

weaver2 said:

The confusion of the laws, what they mean, who they apply to, who enforces them are imperfect and a source of division between anti-abortion and pro-choice.

Click to expand...

I dont understand this answer at all, not as a response to the specificity of my post.

If a law serves no purpose...what is the conflict?

Do we need laws that demand that we dont ride unicorns when unicorns dont exist?

So, can you clarify?

Dayton3 said:

I don't give a damn what the majority of Americans think. A majority of Americans have supported all sorts of absolute hideously evil things like elective abortion in the past. A "majority" doesn't make it right.

Click to expand...

Right back 'atcha...and at least we have the Constitution to protect us from your religious beliefs.

I can say the same about extremist fundamentalists like you, who would be so evil as to deny people the enjoyment of sex outside marriage or gays to marry the one they loved. To deny them is pure, unnecessary evil.

Sampson Simpson said:

Idiotic one line deflection with no facts, no logic, no reasoning (more horrible trolling).

compared to an actual argument, where I point to reasonings behind my position. Whether you agree or not, at least I can provide reasoning for my position instead of stupidly throwing out statements like they are fact with nothing to support them

Click to expand...

That’s called a word salad. That’s not a logical argument.

I start with the premise that killing innocent people is wrong, and that a baby is an innocent person. Therefore I believe killing babies is wrong in all circumstances. That is an airtight argument and it’s really short.

Your argument is three paragraphs of “don’t like an abortion don’t get one” which says nothing to rebut any pro-life argument and can be disputed at every point.

Lursa said:

Right back 'atcha...and at least we have the Constitution to protect us from your religious beliefs.

I can say the same about extremist fundamentalists like you, who would be so evil as to deny people the enjoyment of sex outside marriage or gays to marry the one they loved. To deny them is pure, unnecessary evil.

Click to expand...

denial of joy is hardly that big a deal.

Lursa said:

I do believe in God...on faith. And I believe wholly in His Message of compassion, forgiveness, peace, and brotherly love.

I dont need to prove anything to anyone to believe and follow that. Nor am I, according to the Lord, supposed to force my beliefs on anyone else...just share them.

Click to expand...

No you don’t, you have an imaginary friend who validates your liberal political positions. You would sacrifice literally nothing for God’s glory.

Questerr said:

How is that unrealistic? A return to 1950's era tax brackets as well as overturning the deregulation of the medical industry of the 1970's (forcing it once again to be not-for-profit) would make universal healthcare both affordable for the country and cheap for the average American. Billionaires can afford the few extra percentage points of taxes.

Click to expand...

How very easy it is for you to tell billionaires what they can afford.

Yet you recoil at the idea of abortion opponents telling women what to do.

EMNofSeattle said:

That’s called a word salad. That’s not a logical argument.

I start with the premise that killing innocent people is wrong, and that a baby is an innocent person. Therefore I believe killing babies is wrong in all circumstances. That is an airtight argument and it’s really short.

Your argument is three paragraphs of “don’t like an abortion don’t get one” which says nothing to rebut any pro-life argument and can be disputed at every point.

Click to expand...

Infanticide is illegal. Just a FYI.